Budget Commission Accepts Preliminary 2027 Budgets of All Levied Departments
Budget Commission Meeting – April 6, 2026
Meeting Details: The Geauga County Budget Commission met in Special Session on Monday, April 6, 2026 at 10:00 am in the Auditor's Appraisal Conference Room, 231 Main Street, Chardon, Ohio. The meeting was in person with a virtual attendance option via MS Teams. To attend Budget Commission meetings virtually via MS Teams, email an invitation request to Pam McMahan at PMcMahan@geauga.oh.gov.
Meeting Attendance: Prosecutor Jim Flaiz, Treasurer Chris Hitchcock, and Auditor Chuck Walder.
Staff Attendance: Deputy Auditors Tina Kloski, Kristen Sinatra and Jennifer Hess, Auditor’s Office Senior Government Advisor Natalie Ray (virtual), ADP (Automatic Data Processing) Chief Deputy Administrator Frank Antenucci, ADP Staff Member Akshay Raikar and Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Kristen Rine (virtual).
County Staff: County Administrator Amy Bevan, Deputy County Administrator Mark Jimison, Geauga County Budget and Finance Manager Adrian Gorton, and Geauga Public Health Finance Director Katie Taylor (virtual).
Levied Departments Representatives:
Department on Aging: Job and Family Services:
Director Jessica Boalt Executive Director Craig Swenson
Fiscal Officer Duane Bidlack Financial Administrator Alyssa Steinhoff
Engineer’s Office: Board of Developmental Disabilities:
County Engineer Andrew Haupt Superintendent Don Rice
Chief Deputy Engineer Traci Salkiewicz Assistant Superintendent Dave Carlson
Business Director Rean Davis
Board of Mental Health and Recovery Services: Board Member David Lair
Executive Director Christine Lakomiak
Accounting & Grants Specialist Danette Richards
Members of the Public: LWV Geauga Observers Sarah McGlone and Suzie Bartz.
The meeting was called to order at 10:02 am.
Geauga County 2027 Levied Departments Budget Reviews
-
Background Information: Mr. Walder pointed out that the County’s budget is not actually due until July 20, and the Budget Commission’s action on said budget is due on September 1. Observer Note: The County’s Budget Hearing will be on either August 17 or 18 this year. The finalized hearing schedule has yet to be determined. He stated that the levied departments presenting their budgets at the current meeting fall under the County’s budget, and the purpose of the present budget reviews is to give the County Budget Manager Adrian Gorton feedback with enough time to implement it before the July 20 deadline. Mr. Walder indicated that the Budget Commission could not take specific action at this time, but it would indicate its intentions (i.e., actions it could take at the County’s Budget Hearing) based on what is presented.
Discussion highlights:
-
Ms. Sinatra noted that the Department on Aging has a 1.0 mill levy bringing in an estimated $3,298,816 per year at 98% tax collection and also received manufactured home revenue last year in the amount of $8,484.07.
-
Mr. Walder asked for definitive numbers for the senior center construction project. Ms. Boalt said they were in the adjusted 2026 budget and noted that Aging received $2,778,209.75 in unanticipated revenue that is now included in the adjusted budget. She said that most of that ($2.6 million) was from a revolving loan fund grant for the senior center purchase, with the remaining $160,000 going towards HVAC improvements at the West Geauga senior center and $18,209.75 reflecting interest income. She noted that the purchase price of the Library Administrative Building (which Aging plans to convert into the new senior center) was $3.2 million. She clarified that this purchase has not been executed yet, but the purchase agreement is currently in draft. Ms. Boalt said that the library staff will remain in the building until June of 2027 so remodeling will have to wait until after they leave. She said they estimate that the design study will cost $50,000 and are estimating remodeling will cost $1,450,000.
-
Mr. Flaiz said that Aging was “more forthcoming” about the senior center project this year compared to last year. He went on to say that “you still haven't spent any of that money, and it's been a complete calendar year since we were here last year. So if a building is not purchased by our August hearing, I will vote to reduce your levy collection.”
Discussion highlights:
-
Ms. Sinatra said that BODD receives a total of 4.3 mills from two levies (3.3 mills ($10,321,432 per year at 98% tax collection) and 1.0 mill ($3,312,965 per year at 98% tax collection) respectively). She also noted that BODD received manufactured home revenue last year in the amount of $34,840.50.
-
Mr. Walder said he noticed that actual revenue exceeded anticipated revenue by around $2-3 million in the general (levy) fund in 2024 and 2025. Ms. Davis said that property tax revenue was about $500,000 higher than expected in 2025. She said that an unanticipated cost settlement from the state and a “very large” increase in ODE (Ohio Department of Education) funding were received as well, and she noted that these funding sources are based on the student count.
-
Mr. Walder asked why BODD isn’t using its reserve fund. Ms. Davis said they had depleted it. Mr. Walder explained that by law BODD’s reserve fund works differently from other entities in that it can be used for current/future operating expenses whereas many other entities use reserve funds to save for things like capital expenses that are expected in the future.
-
Mr. Flaiz said he was confused about the depletion of the reserve fund given that the BODD general fund beginning cash balance increased from about $2.6 million in 2022 to approximately $6.2 million in 2026. Ms. Davis said the general fund is used to pay residential services waiver expenses (via a transfer from the general fund to the resident services fund) that are typically due in the first quarter, and this inflates the general fund beginning cash balance. Mr. Flaiz said that he was still confused about why the reserve fund was being drawn down to pay increased Medicaid waiver expenses when the general fund has about three times as much in it as it did a few years ago.
-
Mr. Walder said he treats BODD’s reserve fund as unencumbered cash because of the unique statute governing BODD’s funds. Mr. Flaiz said he understood that and went on to say “I'm not saying you have too much money… it just seems like there's a(n) effort to drain the reserve fund and I don't know to what end… other than to say ‘we don't have a reserve fund anymore.’”
-
Mr. Walder said in the future the Budget Commission should be looking at the resident services fund (Fund #2063) as well to get a more complete picture of BODD finances. He also noted that in this case the reserve fund is “really an extension of your general fund” that could be used for any purpose.
Discussion highlights:
-
Ms. Sinatra said that BODD receives a total of 1.2 mills from two levies (0.7 mills ($2,309,168 per year at 98% tax collection) and 0.5 mills ($1,656,482 per year at 98% tax collection) respectively). She also noted that JFS received manufactured home revenue last year in the amount of $7,638.47.
-
Mr. Walder said that, “this is going to be one of the more difficult ones for us to look at.” He compared JFS’s levy fund to a ping pong ball because one of JFS’s levies (the 0.5 mill levy) has been suppressed to benefit Geauga taxpayers, and then money from the county’s general fund is being transferred into JFS’s levy fund to offset the levy suppression. Mr. Walder said that this requires looking “at two moving pictures at the same time” which can be a challenge. He noted 2024 was an anomaly year because that year the county transferred money into a different JFS fund (public assistance) and now that the county is transferring money into the JFS levy fund the numbers should realign further down the road.
-
Mr. Swenson said that there was some concern that JFS may not have fully been made whole by one of the transfers from the county. Mr. Walder asked if the collection rate was being factored in when the county makes transfers to JFS, and Mr. Gorton said it was not. Mr. Walder explained that usually Geauga’s tax collection rate is about 102% so JFS may have missed out on some of the money that was actually collected over and above the 98% figure usually used for Geauga tax collection estimates. Mr. Gorton said he would be happy to work with the Auditor and Treasurer to figure out what the actual collection amount was to make sure JFS gets all that it is entitled to.
-
Mr. Flaiz provided background information. He explained that the county has had overages in its general fund over the last few years and elected to use the extra revenue to reduce property taxes for Geauga residents. The county did this by reducing or fully suppressing (depending on the year in question) one of the JFS property tax levies. Mr. Swenson clarified that this does not mean that JFS doesn’t need the money provided by property tax levies and noted placement costs are at record levels. He said this approach is just a way to help taxpayers while taking advantage of the county’s healthy financial position. Mr. Walder explained that the 2027 budget submission assumes that JFS’s levies will not be suppressed, but this may change. It was determined that if any JFS levies would be suppressed in 2027, this would need to be done by the end of November.
-
Mr. Flaiz said he knows JFS is working hard on making the youth center project happen. He noted that the location change and waiting on state monies to come in have delayed things, but “the juice was worth the squeeze.” Mr. Flaiz asked if the $6 million would be spent on the youth center this year, and Mr. Swenson said that he is “very much expecting and hoping so.” Mr. Swenson said that the escrow agreement is currently being reviewed by the state and once the escrow agreement is approved by both the state and the county commissioners, they will be ready to go out to bid on the project. He noted that the last cost estimate for the project of roughly $5.6 million was 7-8 months old and therefore the actual costs may have gone up.
-
High placement costs were again discussed, noting that they can be as high as $1,600 per night. Mr. Swenson said that Ravenwood operates the current county youth center, and he has told Ravenwood that, “if they are, in fact, going to be the operators (of the new youth center), that they're going to need to say yes to more of our kids. I've had Ravenwood at the table every single step of the way, making suggestions therapeutically, of what is appropriate in the youth center, what is best practice, because our current youth center wasn't custom built to be a residential treatment facility. It was built to be essentially a group home, and so the new one is more custom built to their requirements or their wishes to best handle these kids. So since it is that way, the expectation is we're going to be able to keep more of our kids local, instead of having to send them off, because it's a better-suited facility for the(ir) needs. And so I'm hoping that some of those costs that I'm talking about we can control, not going to control all of them, but control some more of them, and keep them (the kids) local.” Mr. Flaiz said, “we’ve all had issues with Ravenwood” and added “if they're going to keep going the way they are, then maybe you should look at you guys running the facility.”
-
Mr. Walder expressed concern that construction projects create obligations that may or may not be able to be paid should property taxes be abolished. He asked what JFS’s contingency plan was if property taxes were eliminated. Mr. Swenson said that JFS staff would be “hit the most” because by statute JFS must continue to take care of the kids in its custody. He also said he would plan to go to the county commissioners for their assistance in making up some of the approximately $4 million in property tax revenue JFS receives. Mr. Flaiz stated that by statute the commissioners must provide additional money to JFS if it is needed to take care of kids.
Discussion highlights:
-
Ms. Sinatra said that BODD receives a total of 1.2 mills from two levies (0.5 mills ($1,649,408 per year at 98% tax collection) and 0.7 mills ($2,309,168 per year at 98% tax collection) respectively). She also noted that MHRS received manufactured home revenue last year in the amount of $10,177.78.
-
Ms. Lakomiak said MHRS has secured a million dollar grant for 2028 that would go towards building another apartment building, and they could pursue another million dollar grant as well for this project. However, she said that she was uncertain about making a recommendation to the MHRS board to move forward with that project and there will be discussion with the board regarding whether there is a need for another apartment building and if it is something that they can afford to do.
-
Mr. Walder asked about MHRS’s plans for its capital reserve fund, which is anticipated to have about $1.2 million in 2027. Ms. Lakomiak said that money was available for any repairs that might be needed on any of MHRS’s existing buildings, or it could be put towards the matching funding for the new apartment building if they go forward with that project.
-
Mr. Flaiz praised MHRS’s recently completed TLC (Transitional Living Center) and asked what the total cost of that project was. Ms. Lakomiak said it was about $2.7 million.
-
Mr. Flaiz commented on how well Ms. Lakomiak runs MHRS but said it’s starting to have too much cash overall, to the point where he said he “would be looking to maybe suppress some levy collection.” He said he will be examining where MHRS is financially in August during the county’s budget hearing.
-
Mr. Walder said that MHRS’s capital reserve fund is primarily made of transferred money from the general fund. He noted that “if that capital reserve fund were abolished tomorrow, your general fund would be sitting on $3 million according to these sheets, which is 50% of what you need to operate for a year. Out of the general fund, you're running about a $6.4 million expenditure rate, and holding $3 million against $6.4 million is considered excessive, unless there's need for it in some other way.” Mr. Walder went on to say that “when I see boards making decisions that avoid protecting your infrastructure, meaning your number one asset is your people. I mean you're doing work to service a particular need in the county with people, and they (the MHRS board) didn't want to invest in that. But rather, you want to invest in signage, for example. I look at this and go, you don't need a lot of money to make those kinds of decisions, because those are not necessarily needed. Those were not articulated, and so I don't want to leave money on the table to be able to be spent for purposes that could be construed as not needful.”
-
Mr. Flaiz expressed the opinion that “given the composition of your (MHRS) board and the board of commissioners, they are never going to allow an apartment building to be built, right? And I'm not saying that's right, or I'm not taking a position on it. I just know these people, and we all know who they are. It's never going to happen.”
-
Mr. Walder said that he appreciated Ms. Lakomiak’s hesitation to commit to future projects given the uncertainty surrounding property taxes. He said he thought that everyone should be employing a similar sense of healthy caution.
-
Mr. Hitchcock advised that MHRS identify capital expenditures that could be funded by the reserve fund. He said that MHRS should better define where its capital reserve monies will be spent, “otherwise those monies will go back (to the taxpayers).”
Discussion highlights:
-
Ms. Sinatra explained that the Engineer’s Office had requested revenue in the amount of $3,654,942.00 in the road and bridge fund; however, 2026 is the last collection year for the 2.5 mill road and bridge levy, and it is uncertain whether this levy will pass if it is placed on the ballot for renewal in November. For this reason, the revenue it brings in cannot be considered by the Budget Commission. This uncertainty also means that the Engineer’s estimated 2027 millage is 0. Ms. Sinatra noted that the Engineer’s Office received manufactured home revenue last year in the amount of $8,941.59.
-
Mr. Flaiz asked why the road and bridge levy wasn’t put up for renewal in 2025 since general levies are usually put on the ballot a year before the last collection year. Mr. Haupt said that he was unaware of that.
-
Mr. Walder said that transfers in and transfers out did not balance and wanted to know what fund this was occurring in. Ms. Sinatra stated that this was $130,000 listed as being transferred to fund 2020 but its source was not listed. Mr. Haupt said it was coming from the County Commissioners. Mr. Gorton confirmed this but said he thought the amount was closer to $170,000.
-
Mr. Walder said his concern echoes Mr. Flaiz’s regarding the levy renewal, and he opined that “this is the worst time to put on a levy.” It was noted that it could have been on the ballot in November 2025 or May 2026, and now November 2026 is the last chance for renewal before the funding runs out.
-
Mr. Flaiz observed that the estimated 2026 carryover in fund 2022 was about $15,000 but the actual carryover was about $562,000. He also said that the 2026 estimated encumbrances was $300,000 but there is no actual carryover encumbrance because that was for the Chardon project. Observer Note: The Engineer’s Office did not submit the applications needed to reimburse Chardon City and Middlefield Village for completed roadwork. More information is available in this Geauga Maple Leaf article. Mr. Flaiz advised that the Engineer’s Office “do some heavy cleanup” in this fund to figure out the accurate 2026 numbers in order to better estimate the 2027 numbers.
-
Mr. Flaiz asked how many open positions there were in the Engineer’s Office. Ms. Salkiewicz said about 10, which amounts to about $450,000 in payroll. The payroll amount was later determined to be closer to $700,00-$750,000 when benefits are factored in. Mr. Flaiz said that part of why the County has had issues with high cash carryover is that there is a lot of unspent payroll money across county departments due to unfilled positions. He said the Engineer’s Office should have a fairly easy time spending extra cash carryover because it can always be put into additional road paving jobs.
Regular Business
Minutes: The Minutes from the March 16, 2026 Regular Meeting were approved. Budget Commission Minutes can be found here when posted.
The following Revenue Certificates were approved:
Reviewer Note: An explanation of the different types of funds in revenue certifications can be found
here.
-
Chardon Local School District - Amendment #6. $57,984,694.87 in the general fund, $6,675,798.75 in special revenue funds, $451,477.43 in debt service funds, $5,647,293.40 in capital project funds, $9,275,200.22 in internal service funds, and $115,642.98 in fiduciary funds for a total of $80,150,107.65.
Chardon’s amendment certified increases in special revenue funds and capital project funds.
-
West Geauga Local School District - Amendment #3. $49,775,724.57 in the general fund, $3,914,736.58 in special revenue funds, $20,557,777.11 in capital project funds, $1,554,446.68 in enterprise funds, $330,921.46 in internal service funds, and $2,083.30 in fiduciary funds for a total of $76,135,689.70.
West Geauga’s amendment certified an increase in special revenue funds.
-
Kenston Local School District - Amendment #2 - $50,676,446.85 in the general fund, $2,087,258.02 in special revenue funds, $5,125,780.42 in debt service funds, $2,631,291.27 in capital project funds, $2,272,082.21 in enterprise funds, $8,953,296.18 in internal service funds, and $84,576.96 in fiduciary funds for a total of $71,830,731.91.
Kenston’s amendment certified an increase in special revenue funds.
-
Bainbridge Township - Amendment #3. $3,847,697.39 in the general fund, $20,653,137.90 in special revenue funds, $1,228,282.70 in debt service funds, $5,091,434.47 in capital project funds, and $2,273.70 in fiduciary funds for a total of $30,822,826.16.
Bainbridge’s amendment certified a decrease in capital project funds. The Budget Commissioners noted that Bainbridge Fiscal Officer Janice Sugarman has retired and acknowledged her years of service. Her replacement has not yet been found.
-
Middlefield Village - Amendment #2. $3,772,092.26 in the general fund, $10,583,987.57 in special revenue funds, $1,898,743.22 in capital project funds, $6,884,092.15 in enterprise funds, and $179,376.25 in fiduciary funds for a total of $23,318,291.45.
Middlefield Village’s amendment certified increases in the general fund, special revenue funds, capital project funds, and enterprise funds.
-
Middlefield Township - Amendment #1. $420,701.96 in the general fund and $2,707,902.70 in special revenue funds for a total of $3,128,604.66.
This amendment certified Middlefield Township’s beginning balances for 2026.
-
Chester Township - Amendment #2. $3,808,531.74 in the general fund, $13,035,888.21 in special revenue funds, and $694,834.24 in capital project funds for a total of $17,539,254.19.
Chester’s amendment certified an increase in special revenue funds.
-
Munson Township - Amendment #2. $1,705,301.53 in the general fund, $4,565,849.53 in special revenue funds, and $2,100.00 in special assessment funds, for a total of $6,273,251.06.
Munson’s amendment certified an increase in special revenue funds.
-
Newbury Township - Amendment #2. $1,798,676.00 in the general fund, $4,164,202.09 in special revenue funds, $364,145.93 in debt service funds, $931,279.78 in capital project funds, and $1,535.64 in special assessment funds for a total of $7,259,839.44.
First, the Budget Commission approved Newbury’s newly created road and paving improvement reserve fund. Mr. Walder praised this move and said he thought it was a good idea for all townships to have paving reserve funds. Then the Budget Commissioners approved Newbury’s amendment certifying increases in special revenue funds and capital project funds. This amendment included the initial funding of the road and paving improvement reserve fund at $200,338.
-
Parkman Township - Amendment #1. $777,640.76 in the general fund, $2,175,808.03 in special revenue funds, $11,893.47 in special assessment funds, and $14,759.00 in fiduciary funds for a total of $2,980,101.26.
This amendment certified Parkman Township’s beginning balances for 2026.
Other Business:
-
Two Geauga Public Health Supplemental Appropriations were accepted by the Budget Commission. The first was a $25,303.84 appropriation in Fund 6002 (general fund) for vital statistics remittance to the state, and the second was a $110,000 appropriation in Fund 6043 (operations & maintenance) for general operating expenses through the remainder of the fiscal year, consisting of $100,000 for contract services and $1,000 for refunds.
Discussion:
-
School Rate Resolutions: Ms. Sinatra stated that rate resolutions have been received from all Geauga school districts. Observer Note: These rate resolutions are provided to the districts following their Budget Hearings and must be approved by the school boards and returned to the Budget Commission by April 1.
-
Missing Permanent Appropriations: Ms. Sinatra and Ms. Kloski told the Budget Commissioners that Chardon Township, Geauga Park District, and Russell 1545 Park District have not turned in their updated permanent appropriations. Mr. Walder said his understanding was that entities that haven’t done this by the April 1 deadline cannot spend money until this is rectified, and he wondered “how are they paying their people?” Mr. Flaiz said he thought they were likely still spending money, but ensuing discussion indicated that such spending may not be lawful. Ms. Sinatra said that Chardon Township has been having some issues with their carryover balances and they are working with the State Auditor to fix them. Mr. Walder hypothesized that Geauga Park district may have done their permanent appropriations and just have not turned them in yet. There was less concern about Russell 1545 Park District because they do not receive tax money.
-
Proposed Schedule for the Annual Tax Budget Hearings: The Budget Commissioners discussed the schedule for the annual Tax Budget Hearings on August 17 and 18. There was some discussion about the order in which the entities would appear, but ultimately the decision was made to defer finalizing the schedule to the April 20 Budget Commission meeting.
Public Comment:
LWV Observer Sarah McGlone stated that it was the voter registration deadline day for the Primary Election on May 6 and reminded all about the April 7 property tax education event (the full video of this event is now available here), the April 9 Candidate Forum (the full video of the Candidate Forum is now available here), and LWV voter education resources such as the printed Voter Guide (available at Geauga Public Library branches) and https://www.vote411.org/. Ms. McGlone asked a clarifying question about the nature of some of the approved revenue certifications (the answer is reflected earlier in this report) and requested a copy of all materials from this meeting, which were received via email on April 6, 2026. Finally, Ms. McGlone introduced new LWVG Observer Suzie Bartz, who attended the meeting as part of her Observer training.
Mr. Hitchcock asked about the interest received by levied entities. In the ensuing discussion, it was determined that most of the interest revenue goes into the county general fund.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:51 am.
Next Meeting: The next Budget Commission Meeting will be a Regular Meeting on Monday, April 20, 2026 at 10:00 am in the Auditor's Conference Room, 215 Main Street, Chardon. Virtual attendance for all Budget Commission meetings is available via Microsoft Teams by emailing an invitation request to Ms. McMahan at PMcMahan@geauga.oh.gov.
Observer: Sarah McGlone
Editor: Rooney Moy
Reviewer: Gail Roussey
Submitted: April 13, 2026
The League of Women Voters of Geauga is a 501(c)(3) nonpartisan political organization that encourages informed and active participation in government, works to increase understanding of major public policy issues, and influences public policy through education and advocacy. They do not support or oppose individual candidates or parties. Learn more about the LWVG at www.lwvgeauga.org.